I have wrestled with this thought for a very long time. I have struggled with how to express my thoughts on the topic and I've decided how to open a conversation in this thread. I don't have answers, I do have some opinions, and a perspective. It differs from much of the nonsense I hear in the media and I can't stand it anymore. These are my unpolished thoughts. Perhaps we can help each other's understanding just as iron sharpens iron.

What is the proper role of government?

I want my government to be representative and accountable. I want them to behave this way as they *do* what I want done. This is the "royal" I, so to speak, what the electorate has decided to be done. I think government is the right entity to undertake endeavors that I can't get done by myself. Things that are too big for me to take care of. There are other entities that can do things that require "big", notably corporations.

Governments and corporations are similar in some remarkable ways. They're immortal, they've got leaders, they've got followers, customers, and stakeholders. There is some representation of the stakeholders by the leaders. They can be quite large and get big things done. Both are defined by and constrained by rules and laws. Both exist in our society.

And crucially, when it comes to government, I want it to provide things that I don't want to exist only in a for profit context.

In this way I've been able to identify some things I want the government to provide, things that I believe are important, and ones I don't want available only commercially. Most of these work on a national/federal level as well as a state/local level.

PUBLIC National defense.
If we only had mercenary armies, that would be very very bad. The same is true with our National Guard, the closest thing we have to a militia.

Note, there are effectively private armies out there. Security firms that answer to their paymasters. I am not the paymaster for any of these firms and as such, I have zero control or defense against their potential force. This alarms me.

PUBLIC Police
This is important for the same reasons listed above but for law enforcement at a local or state level. I want police that work for me, not gangs or mafiosi that work for someone else.

PUBLIC Education

PUBLIC Health

PUBLIC Parks

PUBLIC Libraries

PUBLIC Airwaves, including PUBLIC Broadcasting and PUBLIC Radio

PUBLIC Health, including PUBLIC Food inspection, PUBLIC healthcare (right now, just emergency room treatment for all, Medicare/Medicaid for some more.)
PUBLIC Environmental.

PUBLIC Highways

These are things that I believe we need a government presence for. Please keep in mind, NONE of these preclude the existence of PRIVATE entities doing these things, though private national defense squicks me out. The thought that any of these aspects of our society would ONLY be available through PRIVATE corporate access kinda freaks me out. Would you want all roads to be toll roads? Would you want all schools to be for profit organizations? Would you want the environment monitored by those who would applying the tragedy to the commons?

Sometimes, it's hard to separate the "what" from the "how",
But for me the easiest way to describe "good" government is in a short phrase:

"Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves"

Many of the "what's" are among the things you listed,
and that's likely because they are things people "can't do".
Or, maybe we have already decided it would be a poor idea if individuals were allowed to do them.

My interests are among those things "people won't do".
These are things like religious and civil rights for each person,
and the right to be protected from various sorts of harm.

Then, often we can and do agree or disagree among ourselves on the "how's" and "when's".

Interesting. I'd say i pretty much agree with that list. There's one more I'd add though: communication, power and transport infrastructures.

The UK used to have nationally owned utilities, communication, and transport infrastructure: gas, electric, water, telephone, railways. It baffles me that we have privatised these things. Setting aside the fairness/unfairness of limiting access to vital services, what if we end up at war in the future? Properly at war, not jaunts off in some far corner of the world. What if our land was actually under threat? Who owns our essential services and infrastucture?

Well, a lot of it is owned now by foreign corporations. Much of it, I think is US owned, but some of it is owned by other Euro nationals as well. Friends now, but how do we know that will always be so? How easy would it be to shut us down or cause critical disruption to essential services?

What's truly depressing is all that stuff got sold off at knockdown prices, to encourage private participation (apparently: actually in order to make it easier for the governing party's friends to purchase). Garage sale prices for the nation's veins and arteries. Now we have higher prices and lesser service than in most comparable countries. The nation's coffers are regularly made to carry the cost when it goes wrong or subsidise the running of these privately owned national necessities. But the profit all goes to multi-nationals.

They bought us up with beads and blankets.

__________________

Quote:

There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae

I think we need to go back to having a citizen's army (yes - gasp - the draft). At this point something like one half percent of all Americans have served in the volunteer army. That means that the vast majority of Americans have no stake in whatever latest foreign "democratization" process is going on. If more Americans were impacted or potentially impacted by our foreign excursions, the government would be forced to be more responsible in carrying them out and deciding if they should be carried out in the first place.

It is not the place of Halliburten et al to provide essential services for our troops. That is the government's (military's) job. I grew up an Army brat and, back in the day, the military did just fine if not better without these private outfits which have simply become instruments used by politicians to make a profit from our continual round of wars and "peace-keeping missions."

Education - this should be so obvious, yet many want to sharply curtail or even cease funding for education on every level - from elementary to college. An educated work force will make the US a more viable competitor in the global economy. It will also mean that citizens can make more informed choices at the polls. Knowledge is power and corporate America seems to want to make sure that the people have as little power as possible. Education should not be privatized. This will only lead to education for a select (wealthy) few.

Government should not be involved in the care and feeding of mega-corporations. What hypocrites the CEO's of these outfits are - spewing the words "free market" while behind the scenes buying government influence which ensures the market is anything but free.

It is not the place of government to contrive at the enrichment of those who "serve" in Congress. Contributions to politicians should be severely limited and corporations should not be considered "people." It probably wouldn't hurt either to have members of both the House and Senate serve for one 6 year term only.

The Constitution says that Congress should promote the GENERAL welfare - not that of special interests.

It is not the place of the government to legislate matters of private morality or religion. If I am a lesbian who attends a mosque and grew up in the Mormon church, it is no one's business but my own. The government has better things to do, or it should.

The government's job is to preserve the Republic, not contrive at the creation of a plutocracy.

Let me echo your thoughts about the privatization of the military,
and also add the "corpor-ization" of prisons.

It's not the place of Halliburten-wannabees to provide essential services for inmates.
Inmates housed on private property are out of sight and out of mind, and a sure opportunity for corruption.
It's a job only the government should be doing with public oversight.

I think it would be good if we had mandatory military service like many other countries do. Aside from character building and vocational training, I think it gives everyone a good sense of being part of a nation.

Governance, by definition, is about the transaction between those who govern and those who are governed.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the only one qualified to govern me is 'me'.

This, "Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves", seems to me, almost on the mark ('cept for that pesky little word 'government').

So: let's replace 'government' with 'proxies', making the statement, 'proxies do what people can't or won't do for themselves'.

A proxy, by the way, is nothing more or less than 'a person authorized or hired to act on behalf of another'.

The American Constitutional Republic is supposed to be about proxies/employees, not elected/appointed nobility*.

As I said in another thread: the president should be nothing more than hired help, not 'the leader of the free world'.

The President (and Congress and the Supreme Court) are supposed to managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk for the physical and esoteric infrastructures of the republic**.

The whole point of limited governance (proxyhood) is for those managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk to attend to that which is difficult for any one to tackle on his or her own*** (and otherwise to leave folks ALONE to rise or ****fall as each is capable or liable).

As long as the question remains, "What is the proper role of government?" (a nice way of asking 'what's the proper way for the governors to direct the governed?'), then folks are guaranteed to remain 'kept' and 'led' and 'cared for' (and sent, occasionally, to the abattoir).

*And: sure as hell the American Constitutional Republic is not supposed to be about mob rule dressed in finery ('democracy')!

**As one descends the levels (federal, state, regional, county/parish, municipality, and on and on), the same principle of proxyhood applies...right down to Joe hiring a lawn care service.

***The question of what exactly falls into the category of 'difficult for any one to tackle on his or her own' is fodder for another thread, perhaps, as it -- the question -- is subtly different from "What is the proper role of government?"

I have gotten the distinct impression from you that you live off the grid, on an island, alone. That's cool, but that's not where I live.

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Governance, by definition, is about the transaction between those who govern and those who are governed.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the only one qualified to govern me is 'me'.

This, "Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves", seems to me, almost on the mark ('cept for that pesky little word 'government').

So: let's replace 'government' with 'proxies', making the statement, 'proxies do what people can't or won't do for themselves'.

A proxy, by the way, is nothing more or less than 'a person authorized or hired to act on behalf of another'.

The American Constitutional Republic is supposed to be about proxies/employees, not elected/appointed nobility*.

As I said in another thread: the president should be nothing more than hired help, not 'the leader of the free world'.

The President (and Congress and the Supreme Court) are supposed to managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk for the physical and esoteric infrastructures of the republic**.

The whole point of limited governance (proxyhood) is for those managers, plumbers, janitors and maintenance folk to attend to that which is difficult for any one to tackle on his or her own*** (and otherwise to leave folks ALONE to rise or ****fall as each is capable or liable).

Ok, so far, so good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry quirk

As long as the question remains, "What is the proper role of government?" (a nice way of asking 'what's the proper way for the governors to direct the governed?'), then folks are guaranteed to remain 'kept' and 'led' and 'cared for' (and sent, occasionally, to the abattoir).

Time out. You've some lovely words, henry, but I will thank you to keep them out of my mouth. The two questions you equate are not the same, and I am not saying, nicely or otherwise "How should I be bossed around?". Go back up to the top and look for the part where I said I want the government to do work that the electorate has decided needs to be done that I can't do. I am not your comrade in anarchy, nor am I a subject to be controlled, "kept", "led", "cared for" or slaughtered.

Sometimes, it's hard to separate the "what" from the "how",
But for me the easiest way to describe "good" government is in a short phrase:

Thanks, it is a crucial distinction to make and a difficult one, and one that is often overlooked or confused. I want to focus on the what for now, because if the what is "not at all", then the how becomes moot. Lots of discussion about our deficit and debt and projections into the future could be simplified this way. Indeed, some of the more radical discussions from the right wing of the political conversation advocate this as the main method of closing our gaps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

"Government does what people can't or won't do for themselves"

My interests are among those things "people won't do".
These are things like religious and civil rights for each person,
and the right to be protected from various sorts of harm.

I like this point very much. It is the compliment to PUBLIC Police. Law enforcement needs a judicial branch if we aspire to rise above vigilantes and lynchings. I'd add PUBLIC Judiciary to the list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Interesting. I'd say i pretty much agree with that list. There's one more I'd add though: communication, power and transport infrastructures.

--snip--

What's truly depressing is all that stuff got sold off at knockdown prices, to encourage private participation (apparently: actually in order to make it easier for the governing party's friends to purchase). Garage sale prices for the nation's veins and arteries. Now we have higher prices and lesser service than in most comparable countries. The nation's coffers are regularly made to carry the cost when it goes wrong or subsidise the running of these privately owned national necessities. But the profit all goes to multi-nationals.

They bought us up with beads and blankets.

Here in the US we have private utilities, private communication infrastructure, and ... ok, we have a very different transportation infrastructure, but what we have is largely private. Transportation in a minute, the others first.

Utilities like power, water, sewer, garbage, gas, etc. these are largely private enterprises in the US, but they are subject to heavy regulation. Still, they're profitable despite the regulation. Interestingly, my city, Seattle, has a publicly owned electric utility. It works just fine.

I think this fits the qualificiations for a need that is BIG, requiring BIG to deal with it. But in lots of places here, this has succeeded as a PRIVATE venture. Let me add this. Where there is a captive consumer base, no competition and no regulation, private providers's hunger for profits will always outweigh the individual's interest. A corporations self interest is in maximizing profit and that must be paramount, or they will soon cease to exist.

PUBLIC transit is not something I think *has* to be done by the government, but I think it is in the best interest of the local populations to make PUBLIC transit available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

I too agree with most of the list.

Especially:

I think we need to go back to having a citizen's army (yes - gasp - the draft). At this point something like one half percent of all Americans have served in the volunteer army. That means that the vast majority of Americans have no stake in whatever latest foreign "democratization" process is going on. If more Americans were impacted or potentially impacted by our foreign excursions, the government would be forced to be more responsible in carrying them out and deciding if they should be carried out in the first place.

It is not the place of Halliburten et al to provide essential services for our troops. That is the government's (military's) job. I grew up an Army brat and, back in the day, the military did just fine if not better without these private outfits which have simply become instruments used by politicians to make a profit from our continual round of wars and "peace-keeping missions."

I wonder if the growth of the military industrial complex to the extent that the cooks aren't also soldiers hasn't hollowed out our armed services. It has certainly enriched the corporations that have grown these businesses. I also don't think that the army should be in the business of producing weapons. I don't have a problem with this as a PRIVATE venture, with limits and conditions, the same kinds of conditions I expect from my government in other areas, responsibility and accountability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

Education - this should be so obvious, yet many want to sharply curtail or even cease funding for education on every level - from elementary to college. An educated work force will make the US a more viable competitor in the global economy. It will also mean that citizens can make more informed choices at the polls. Knowledge is power and corporate America seems to want to make sure that the people have as little power as possible. Education should not be privatized. This will only lead to education for a select (wealthy) few.

PUBLIC EDUCATION.

There isn't an item on the list that is a more obvious No Brainer. Not to the exclusion of private schools, fine, but there must be Public Schools. I also strenuously disagree with the current trend of local school districts allowing charter schools to recieve public money thereby high grading (cherry picking) students from the local population. This is a very bad idea that exacerbates all the problems in these areas. Like that idiot in the video, don't pay your federal loans, that'll show 'em. Culling the best students, the most affluent students from the public system... yeah. That's gonna strengthen our nation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

Government should not be involved in the care and feeding of mega-corporations. What hypocrites the CEO's of these outfits are - spewing the words "free market" while behind the scenes buying government influence which ensures the market is anything but free.

It is not the place of government to contrive at the enrichment of those who "serve" in Congress. Contributions to politicians should be severely limited and corporations should not be considered "people." It probably wouldn't hurt either to have members of both the House and Senate serve for one 6 year term only.

The Constitution says that Congress should promote the GENERAL welfare - not that of special interests.

Good point. When it comes to risk a hybrid plan like PRIVATE gains and PUBLIC losses is unacceptable. See Volker act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

It is not the place of the government to legislate matters of private morality or religion. If I am a lesbian who attends a mosque and grew up in the Mormon church, it is no one's business but my own. The government has better things to do, or it should.

Here's an aspect of our society I think the government should have NO business. Marriage is a contract. We have contract law, including limits. Minors can't enter into contracts. But do we have laws that say white can't contract with black? No, because that's stupid. Do we have laws that say Jew can't contract with Gentile? No, because that's stupid. Do we have laws that says a man can't have a contract with a man? No, because that's stupid. But we have a law that says a man can't marry a man and a woman can't marry a woman. And that is also stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam

The government's job is to preserve the Republic, not contrive at the creation of a plutocracy.

That is all.

Alarming verging on depressing. I, for one, DO NOT welcome our new Plutocratic Overlords. Screw that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

snip--

and also add the "corpor-ization" of prisons.

It's not the place of Halliburten-wannabees to provide essential services for inmates.
Inmates housed on private property are out of sight and out of mind, and a sure opportunity for corruption.
It's a job only the government should be doing with public oversight.

GOOD POINT, a very good point. How is it that private prisons exist anyhow? Tell me how a business (that isn't producing soylent green) can make a go of it in the prison business, AND ASTONISHINGLY, with just one customer, the government? This is definitely a job for government ONLY. PUBLIC incarceration a natural component of PUBLIC Justice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

I think it would be good if we had mandatory military service like many other countries do. Aside from character building and vocational training, I think it gives everyone a good sense of being part of a nation.

The draft has a lot of things going for it, including the main point you mention. I haven't given a return to the draft much critical thought in many years though so my brains are rusty on this score.

I think in a vast nation like the USA, a national transit system might be unmanageable. In the UK, we're so damn small, that parcelling up the rail network to different companies just creates a complex jigsaw. When they privatised the national rail, they made a mess of it. You'd have stretches of tracks oned by one company, the stations by another, the catering by another and several competing providers running trains. All in the same basic space.

Repairs and maintenance lost out i the restructuring. Surprise, surprise, privately run companies are more interested in maximising profit and less interested in nailing down the satey element than publicly accountable organisations. Several major train crashes and a damning report into the condition of the nation's railways and rail stock later, and it became clear that major repairs and upgrades were needed.

Guess who subsidises that stuff? Yep, the taxpayer. We pay more for our tickets and get a shittier service than we did when it was publicly owned; on top of sky-high ticket prices we also still pay subsidies through our taxes, and the profit all goes into the shareholders' pockets.

__________________

Quote:

There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae

Funny (not) how things that go around, come around... and the pendulum swings back and forth.

The US had a similar history of railroad jigsaw pieces that did not fit together,
until the late 1880's when the cats were herded via our Interstate Commerce Commission.
Then they were nationalized for WWI
Then they were re-privatized in the 30's
US time zones were a result of the jigsaws, but they are ruled by state government.

Locally, Portland pushed through a small multi-county "coordinating council"
called Metro based on area-wide auto and truck transportation needs.
This "council" has now grown to a dominate force over the region
controlling all manner of transportation (buses, streetcars),
garbage and recycling, natural areas (parks, greenways, rivers and streams, trees, invasive plants),
on and on, to even tourist destinations such as the Oregon Zoo.

My personal belief is that a government is in place only to create a system of laws which are there for the benefit of the whole society, not just sections of it. As the society evolves, so must the laws.

This evolution certainly happens, but the evolution is not always to the benefit of all citizens.